Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical; pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible
Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation Despotism 2nd Dark Age until Bible is destroyed
Topics: DEADLY ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
He says "let's differentiate the idiots on one hand from the serious christians..." I'd not call them serious but "namby pamby". Taking an non-literalistic view of the book necessitates a much more complicated and nonsensical religion. Accepting evolution leads to certain natural conclusions about humans - ie. that we're not remotely special in the grand scheme of things and that our uniqueness is a product of our own doing. We invented medicine for a reason; life wasn't ok for us.
I grew up Catholic and we never actually read the Bible. I think there are many Christians who have never actually read the Bible. Think about how stupid that is. You are dedicating your life to a belief and you have never even studied the foundations of that belief. Actually I don't find the questions about God that people like Dawkins or Bill Maher bring up to be all that controversial or uncommon. I had a lot of these questions in my head at age nine or less. Noahs Ark never made sense! LOL
I like Richard Dawkins. He is an intelligent guy. I don't think he is evil. I believe if Dawkins discovered some new scientific evidence of a God or if he had a personal "revelation" and changed his mind he would come out and write a new book. Ironically I started off watching the DVDs Religilous, The God Who Wasn't There, then reading Dawkins book and Christopher Hitchens book and now I am reading The Bible. All of this has sparked a curiosity about The Bible for me.
A day will come, one day in the unending succession of days, when beings, beings who are now latent in our thoughts and hidden in our loins, shall stand upon this earth as one stands upon a footstool, and shall laugh and reach out their hands amidst the stars."
It is possible to believe that all that the human mind has ever accomplished is but the dream before the awakening... Out of our... lineage, minds will spring, that will reach back to us in our littleness to know us better than we know ourselves.
Testing existing involves finding a single instance, and then identifying the conditions under which that instance is possible. Obviously, the more instances you find, the better the evidence. Testing non-existence, however, would involve demonstrating that there are absolutely under no circumstances under which the specified phenomena occurs or can occur - a much harder task.
Science, therefore, can make one of three (not necessarily mutually exclusive) points: either that we have searched ridiculously hard and found no concrete evidence for phenomenon X; or that given our current theories, phenomenon X adds nothing to our understanding of the world and therefore is an unnecessary complication; or that phenomenon X is highly improbable given everything else we know.
@AernoutMJC It's not actually that hard if you live near a big enough city in Brittan or the United States. Definitely easy if you want to wait for his next book tour.
@AernoutMJC Meh. he's overrated. and in fact now, atheists are leaning on this man to prove their own belief in the scientific method... sound familiar? maybe the whole Christian community relying on Jesus? Dawkin's is not the spokesman for the scientific method. Humans are. We are all responsible to make change. Don't be so lazy.
@mnagmobile Atheists don't believe in anything. If you still cannot grasp that notion, than I pity you. Thank you for not understanding what I said either.
The Truth cannot depend on any other truth, - if the subatomic particle of your brain moves, when you think, or if you think, it moves?. The subatomic particles of your brain moves at random?. We to reason about: what is the truth?, we need respond these questions. Richard is lying. The following question is simple cause-effect.
Ok I'm gonna be honest here, I don't actually understand what you're getting at. You've said twice (a least) that Richard Dawkins is lying... about what? And where is your counter-evidence? I would be interested to hear it.
Richard cannot proves HIS DECISION. If he says: my thoughts depend on the movement of subatomic particles, then the atheism is only a product from the subatomic particles; but if he says: my thoughts no depend on the movement of subatomic particles, then, the subatomic particles are capable to moves by design (spirit), and the atheism is false. It is a personal decision. The atheism is a kind of faith because is based on an assumption that cannot be verified.(put right)
lol seriously leiv?, the people that are atheist are many times, smart people from religious backgrounds who had the brains to actually question their religion. Finding the logical holes in it, they became atheist. If you think you'll convince any of these people by saying "richard lies" your sadly mistaken. That only works on stupid people. Notice how everyone responding to you is demanding evidence? Notice how Richard provides clear cut evidence and arguments? Shh just quiet down and learn
Please, do you can read my answer to AtheistBrit?. The first step of the scientific method is the observation, and this begins in our consciousness, It does not begin in subatomic particles. Richard cannot proves HIS DECISION.
anyways no, atheism does NOT need evidence. It is the neutral decision. If you dont understand why think about it like this. Do you believe in undetectable cheese monsters? Science cant test them. Do you believe in them? Of course not, in logic NOT believing in a claim that is unsupported is the most reasonable position. Atheists dont have to PROVE no god exists, as that is the starting point. You dont believe in a miriad of things because you have no reason to. Its called occams razor.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Atheism cannot deny God because cannot deny the intelligence. If the subatomic particles of your brain determines your thoughts, really can you decide?, really are you a conscious being?...I repeat: the atheism is a kind of faith because is based on an assumption that cannot be verified. Richard says: God no exists, but he is based on an idea that he cannot verified. because of this, he is lying. My evidence are the people. It`s fully verified, the persons makes science.
I agree with boorens. Just because we can't disprove something, we should believe it? That makes no sense. I can't disprove that there's a teapot in orbit between Earth and Mars - should I believe in the teapot and be a teapotist?
If my thoughts are only product the product of random movements of subatomic particles, I should answer this issue?. If you not believe in the design, for what respond and teach about atheism?. Finish of our debate.
And you don`t send massages in English to persons who don`t understand the English language. The first American who learned to speak Spanish, he did not know Spanish(...) think about.
There are only two options: unintelligent change (random) or the smart change (design), the first universal cause can not change both ways at the same time.
I suggest you think things through more carefully. If two snooker balls are positioned at random on a table, and one ball is hit at a given angle with a given force, the final position of both balls can be accurately calculated based on the velocity of the ball after the initial impact, the friction exerted by the table and the dimension of the table, among other things.
In this case, the initial position of the balls is random, and even the initial impact on the ball may be random, but the subsequent motion is not random, being a predictable function of a known set of variables. However, this is not the result of a designer, it's just the logical and predictable laws of nature at play. Try scaling that up to trillions of atoms - of course, you can never make that calculation, but it's still not random, though it may give the appearance of being so.
Ok, nature is governed by laws, but they are not exacts. All level of order has its own level of statistical deviations. On the other hand, if what we can not measure two macrocopical events really identical, why you think that there may be microscopic? - We infer the atom indirectly using macrocopical measures.
it's not a matter of our ability to measure them - as heisenberg tells us, such measurements are impossible in practice. the point is that movement at the atomic level is determined by the initial positions of the atoms and the velocity and nature of the initial forces that induce the motion to begin with. what follows is chaotic behaviour - it is sensitive to the initial conditions - but that does not make it any less orderly in the sense that it obeys the laws of physics.
to say that something is chaotic is not to say that it is random. chaotic behaviour is predictable in principle, but it is dynamic and thus can give the illusion of randomness. there are plenty examples of chaotic behaviour in nature but these behaviours are neither random nor necessarily designed.
my point here is that you are presenting a false dichotomy - there is a third option between design and randomness, chaos and determinism being two examples. of course, you will not agree with my position if you insist that the laws of nature must have been designed by god. but if that is your position, then we're into a circular argument and your comment that behaviour is either random or designed in no way advances the debate.
Ok, the question is this: your *chaotic* movement * would allow the brain to be scientifically objective, to the living being recombine their DNA to adapt to the environment, and allow inexact natural laws but not absolutely chaotic. I think it's design.
No, absolutely chaotic but only giving the appearance of randomness. Chaotic in the scientific sense of that word simply means that the behaviour is dynamic - i.e. sensitive to the initial conditions of the environment at the time the behaviour commences. But in any case, the dichotomy you present is based on the assumption that natural laws are designed, and if you dispute the assumption, then the dichotomy is no longer the case. The argument is circular and thus gets us nowhere.
Ok, I think you think chaos is equal to unintelligent exchange, - I explained this: a unintelligent change cannot explain our scientific objectivity, or the recombination of DNA of organisms to adapt to the environment, or the impossibility of identical repeating of a natural event.
Why do you pick scientific objectivity as a specific example? It seems to me that scientific objectivity is no less explicable by means of "unintelligent change" than is bias or delusion. As for the DNA of organisms, they don't recombine to adapt to the environment - that's a misinterpretation. They recombine at random. Recombinations that produce adverse effects are more likely to fail to be passed on. Thus the net result is adaptation to the environment. There is no need for intelligence.
1) scientific objectivity requires independence of his own cause to study its origin, The belief that *our thoughts are products of chemical-physical reactions* is a problem, we have self-control. 2) The genes recombine "chance" if the environment is appropriate for survive a wide range of progeny. That's what Gregor Mendel did, he placed his peas in an ideal environment controlled.
"The genes recombine "chance" if the environment is appropriate for survive a wide range of progeny" - I'm sorry, I don't think I quite understood the point of that statement. In any case, your point about Mendel is irrelevant because he knew nothing about the physical processes underpinning recombination.
Scientific objectivity is not necessarily related to the ability of an organism to understand its origin at all. It simply means the ability to approach a topic with an open mind. In any case, if you talk to modern psychologists they will tell you that no being can think entirely rationally or objectively - we are all inherently bias-prone. That's why science has evolved mechanisms to overcome those limitations. When you say we have self-control, what precisely do you mean by that?
As for the identical repetition of a natural event, this is not impossible, it is just highly improbable. It is improbable because of the vast complexity of most natural events. The unlikelihood of natural events being exactly replicated is exactly what we would expect, therefore - the more factors involved, the less likely they are to coincide in exactly the same way twice or more. It would be more of an argument for intelligence if natural events were frequently exactly replicated.
your argument is based on a presupposition, this is not an observation. the no-replication is constant for any level of order, each level of order has its own statistical deviations. You need data to support your argument. The exact replication is impossible, two days are alike, thera is not way to prove that a series of events has really the same chance of occurring.
If you're going to accuse me of making presuppositions, then you should identify precisely what that presupposition is. Mathematically, if you increase the number of variables that govern an event, you increase the possible outcomes of the event and therefore reduce the probability of any single outcome occurring. Natural events involve a huge number of variables. Therefore, any single outcome of a natural event is highly improbable. Thus recurrence of any given outcome is also improbable.
In any case, if you claim for yourself the right to demand data from me to support my argument that natural events are complex, then I claim for myself the right to demand data and empirical evidence to support the hypothesis that there is a being, physical or metaphysical, sufficiently intelligent, large and powerful enough to either design the human brain or to control the movement of particles through the circuitry of every animal brain in the universe which seems to be your claim.
I take it then that you consider yourself to be an anti-realist? That is, you consider that the truth of a statement is dependent on our ability to construct a proof for the statement? If not, then you accept the fact that we cannot prove something does not make it any less true or false and so your statement that "thera is not way to prove that a series of events has really the same chance of occurring" is irrelevant.
As for the level of order argument, consider two different events - A and B. Imagine that A has just 1 possible outcome, while B has 10 possible outcomes. Self-evidently, the probability that an exact replication of event B will occur is significantly lower than the probability that an exact replication of event A will occur.
In any case, do you seriously believe that no single event could EVER recur? To believe such a thing is to believe that once a particular event has occurred it is crossed off and somehow the physical world conspires to prevent its recurrence. I agree it's highly improbable, but it's not impossible. If I'm making any presupposition here it is only that truth and our ability to prove that something is true are two entirely separate concepts.
If you want data, however, to test out my point about poitn about the two different events and the corresponding probability of a recurring event, try this experiment out. Get a coin and a six sided die. Flip the coin 100 times and make a note of the result of every flip. Now roll the die 100 times and make a note of every result. You are almost guaranteed to find that the chance of an event recurring for the coin flip is higher than the chance of an event recurring for the dice roll.
I was referring to non-replication of a natural event, I was not referring to the concept that we have a natural event. I mean: if we analyze the die and the trajectory of every pitch, we observe that no trajectory is repeated, and that the die changes slowly and should be replaced.
My purpose was to demonstrate my point in a manner that is amenable to observation and thus that can be decided upon. Thus I defined the outcome of a coin toss as being the value produced by the object being cast, and disregarded the position of the object when it lands. In this case we have abstracted the event somewhat, but this does not invalidate the basic point. In both cases, then, the outcome is determined by a single dependent variable.
In the case of the coin, that variable has two possible values - heads and tails. In the case of the coin, the variable has six possible values. It is self evident, therefore, that the value of that particular variable being repeated is greater in the case of the coin than in the case of the die. Let us begin to scale up the complexity, and say in addition to the value produced by the cast object, we additionally observe the position in a 10 x 10 grid at which the object lands.
In that case, consider two events E1 and E2 such that Ei is either a coin toss or a roll of the die and both E1 and E2 are the same kind of event. Let Oi be the outcome for a given event, Ei, and P(Oi) be the probability of that outcome occurring for event Ei. Given the independence of the two events, the probability of O1 being followed by O2 is P(O1) * P(O2) = (10*10*N)^2. Compare that to the case in which we measure just the value of the cast item - here the probabiltiy of repetition is N^2.
Already, then, we see that the improbability of an event grows significantly the more complex the event becomes. Simply by moving from a coin to a die we see that the probability of repetition dramatically decreases. Imagine, then, the complexity if we decided to measure the exact force and trajectory of the item when cast, and the exact position in every instant in time of every particle in the cast item.
The complexity would be vast and the probability of a precise replication occurring would consequently be miniscule. We can say two things, however. First, despite the remoteness of the possibility of a recurrence, the event is still not impossible. To say something is impossible is to say that the probability of its occurrence is precisely 0. In our case, the probability is admittedly tiny, but it is still greater than 0, and as such the event is improbable but not impossible.
The second point you've made is that the coin or die changes in some way in the process of each casting. Well, all you've done there is suggested that the behaviour of the casting process is dynamic - i.e. chaotic. The same principles regarding the probability of recurrence applies, you've simply further increased the complexity of the event. You therefore further decrease the likelihood of recurrence, but still not to actual impossibility.
In any case, to say that we have not observed an event is not to say it is impossible. If you want to dispute that axiom with me, then you must say that since you have not actually observed any form of divine designer actively at work (you have, at best, inferred such an entity from what you have observed), then you must conclude that such an entity is impossible. Your argument would thereofre be self defeating.
Unless you wish to argue, therefore, that there can be no designer, you are compelled to concede that we cannot conclude the impossibility of replication from the improbability of observing perfect replications of an event. To defend your insistence of the need for a designer in the kinds of changes seen in events such as a coin toss, I challenge you to point out precisely what part of the coin toss process requires the presence of a designer to explain it.
I do not have time to answer a lot of comments. you tries to answer me specifically, in one or two "post", please. The experiment of the die is invalid because it was designed to appears o give the impression of random, its sides were limited to six. Nature does not repeat any day.
This is now quite clearly reducing to an argument about definition. Empirical (as opposed to theoretical) science seeks statements of the form "under the conditions, C, one can expect a system, S, with the properties, P, to exhibit behaviours, B, and to produce results, R". When scientists talk about repeatability they mean a statement of that form, if found true in one case, will be found true in all cases. By that definition it is clear that repeatable phenomena do occur.
Ok, I mean: exact repetition of a natural event, not concepts or abstractions, I mean, the no-exact repetition is constant across time, place and order level, therefore, it is a natural principle as the cause-effect principle (causal principle). I repeat: the universal change is not exact but maintains the same laws and order, is design
You're still arguing in terms of a really vague definition of an "event". Characterise a single distinct event? In terms of time units (days, hours, seconds)? Maybe in terms of distinct phenomena (earthquake, volcanic eruption, huricane)? And then what conditions must be met for two events to be considered identical? (Identical in both time and space? Identical in space only? The position of particles within the system itself must be identical? Or must the same hold for the system environment?)
I see where you're coming from, but it still seems to me that you're conflating actuality with possibility. The statements "X is not" and "X cannot be". The latter is a much stronger statement and necessarily entails the former. The former, however, does not at all entail the latter. That is, "man can never fly, therefore he is not flying" is a valid argument. "This bird I'm looking at is not flying at the moment, and therefore it cannot fly" is self-evidently an invalid argument.
Similarly, to say that "we do not observe exact repetition, therefore there can never be exact repetition" is simply not a valid argument - it's precisely the same logical structure as "X is not, therefore X cannot be". Consider some more examples if you're not convinced that argument isn't logical. "My computer is not turned on now, therefore it can never be turned on". "I am not hungry right now, therefore I can never be hungry". "The sky is grey today, therefore the sky can never be blue".
The fallacy is a matter of affirming the consequent, it's simply not a valid move. I am happy to admit that I've never observed an exact repetition, but the best that I can say on that basis is that I have no reason to think that I will ever experience an exact repetition. That is not at all the same thing as saying that it is physically impossible that such a thing might occur. There's really nothing more that I can say about that, if you don't accept that, then you're simply reinventing logic.
You are, of course, free to dismiss logic as irrelevant, but since we're in the business of discussing science here, and science relies on logic as a means for obtaining demonstrable truth, that rather puts you at odds with the method of the discussion.
There is another point here anyway. Let's start with the statement "universal change is not exact but maintains the same laws and order". Of course I accept this. But to jump from that to the conclusion "these laws are designed" seems to me a massive jump. Your thinking seems to be that there is no reason, if everything was simply random, why these laws and order would appear constant across time, even when everything else changes.
It seems to me, however, that the implication of such a line of thinking is that particles have minds of their own, are concious of the laws and therefore set out to follow them at all times - or perhaps that they're being guided at every stage by the designer who ensures that the particles obey the appropriate laws. Well, if that's the interpretation you want to take, then feel free. All I can say is that there's no evidence that either is the case. We also have a simpler explanation.
Science is in the business of finding patterns that describe the behaviour of the world. Patterns are postulated, then tested to see whether they hold up under a range of conditions. Patterns are then either refined accordingly, or rejected in cases where they do not hold up. The patterns that are really robust, and can be mathematically defined, we call laws. These laws, however, do not dictate what must happen in the world, but rather they are patterns that describe what does happen.
It is not, therefore, that the world sets out to obey the laws. Rather, the laws describe the world precisely because if a law doesn't describe the world then we get rid of it. Doesn't particularly matter how the world works, the same would be true even if there were no gravity or relativity. We observe patterns because it's how our mind works, these patterns happen to match up to reality because we've developed a method of testing patterns and rejecting ones that don't.
There is nothing to suggest that these laws are constant and will never change. In fact, some areas of theoretical physics suggest there may even be places in which normal laws of physics break down. If we found that to be the case we would have to answer two big questions - why do the normal laws not hold in those places, and what laws do hold in those places? We'd then have two sets of laws and an explanation to explain why we had two sets of laws.
It'd be harder to explain, however, what would motivate a designer to create two sets of laws. Such a discovery would only add to the conclusion that the world is random rather than designed. This is true by your own admission since you seem to be implying that the designer is implied by the constancy of the laws. The corrolary to that must be that if the laws were not constant then we'd have less reason to suspect a designer.
That said, however, I ask you: if we lived in such a world, would you accept the fact that the world appeared to be a little more random than it does at present?
The experiment was precisely not designed to give the effect of randomness. The effect of randomness actually has no bearing on the matter, and in fact the roll of a die is precisely not random - unpredictable, not random.
More simple: if not possible an exact repetition of a natural event macroscopic, nor can be the exact repetition of a microscopic natural event because the causal principle microscopic would be false. One day is not identical to another day. Nature changes but maintains the same laws and order, is design.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Than I would be a idiot in your eayes but I believe God has made this earth.. mebey it is only 6000 or 7000 years old... God is not for nothing God.. If you believe in God you believe that he is almighty...
Wow that was mind obbgling stimulative what he said about the evoloution of animals being similar to a gradual increase of arms race over millions of years....
There's no need to guess! The old testament god condones genocide and numerous other atrocities - would you expect anything less brutal than natural selection from such a creator?
It doesn't seem like a huge leap to assume that if god made everything then animals have no choice other than to operate exactly according to his plan. If the natural world is violent beyond measure then that has to be a reflection of his mind. Not a god I'd worship even if I believed he existed.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I see your point and respect it, but I don't agree. I believe God made everything including us. The process he went about doing it I don't know, but I do believe that humans are so much more than just evolved animals. I think we could be evolved, but the element of hope, dreams, love, and ability to ask the question of why is what makes us so much more than just physical. I believe God gave us a choice to love him or to do our own thing, and THIS FREE WILL is why the world is full of violence.
I wasn't talking about the human world, which is certainly extremely violent by our own making as you say.
I meant nature. Animals who have no conscious mind with which to make choices. That world is ruthless and brutal, life is often short and unpleasant. Creatures eaten alive by fast and sharp toothed predators, or from within their own bodies by voracious parasites. These animals act automatically, and if all were created by god then surely they act as he intended?
Wow I never thought about it that way... not one of my millions of ancestors failed to copulate.. now I feel like my genes have been working hard and have intention, and I sholud be passing them on.. but I don't want to have babys..
you've just made a statement "God never changes" and submitted this as evidence? no one knows anything about God, so who anointed you with this knowledge???
if something was here before the universe began, the chances of it being this personal God that is talked about in the Bible is absurd. by that reasoning it could be any of 1000s of Gods man has invented. why are people so hung up that there needs to have been some guy that made the Universe, it's silly and childish.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
mr. dawkins, your chimpanzee behavior is showing again. Where did you learn that people who have a different belief than you are idiots? Haven't you learned yet that it is not polite to call people idiots? An idiot is a menthally handicapped person. How dare you call people stable, intelligent people idiots? As the old adage says, it takes one to know one. So be careful that your words do not boomerang on you. You want to appear to know more than you actually do. lesson n.1 be polite!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
lol I thought I might find YOU here
Evolution is TOTAL belief, tiby, and quite frankly, I find it idiotic.
I do not believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old, and neither do any other Catholics (star star).
Richard Dawkins is an idiot, Albert Einstein would slap him if he could. Why don't you look up what Einstein said about God? He used his Science in accordance with God.
Richard Dawkins is just stupid, and doesn't want to accept anything further than what he can SEE.
you shouldn't tag people after the reliion of their parents. you were a tagged as catholic before you even saw day light.
If you were born in India you would've been a hindu
Yes. Einstein came from Jewish roots. That doesn't mean he believed in God. Show me a few records of Einstein voluntarily entering a sinagogue. Or even preaying for that matter.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
He practiced his faith... he was a practicing Jew....
I still am a Catholic, though have considered converting to Islam. Either way, 'The Light' is God, tiby, and I can guarentee you, there is no harm in believing in him whether he's real or not, but if you don't- and he IS real, then there's a big suprise waiting.
As for evolution, there is no fucking proof. The "Fossil scale" or w/e shit is a guess at best.
I know you've been mocking spaghetti. Don't deny it. Your going to spaghetti hell kid. Also you haven't paid tribute to Zeus lately, have you ? Ooooo.... a bad boy you've been. you'll be crossing the Styx river very soon. Also Thor would love to hammer you're head.
Why are the gods I've mentioned above any less credible than the judeo-christian god ?
why should he or anyone just accept something because he can't see it. that's just silly and opens it up to mean that you have to believe and accept everything that the human mind can imagine.
let's change the question around, why should one not believe something because they can't see it?
I've never seen Zimbabwe, so why should I accept it exists? I've never met anyone from Zimbabwe, I've never had any direct coorolation with Zimbabwe. The only way I know about it, is that it's on my globe.
Why believe it? What makes the globe so correct? I've never actually seen it. So until I do, the globe is wrong, and Zimbabwe doesn't exist.
I've been to Zimbabwe and I can assure you it exists.
Your argument here is very flawed in my opinion. The difference is evidence. There is mountains and mountains of evidence that Zimbabwe exists. You can actually see it on the news, on the map, you can meet Zimbabwean people, you can get on a plane and go there. There is zero evidence of God, zip, none, nada, zilch.
Check out youtube vid watch?v=EbcS234hvQc for an example using Australia vs God.
If all that was created was made out of nothing, then how did it happen? Nothing can make time, but we do know time is finite. Time is changes in matter. If you were to apply properties of infinity to time, then nothing would change.
Ex: If I told you I would give you a dollar after I flipped the switch an infinite amount of times, would you get it? No, as I would never end.
God never changes, and therefore this is evidence- law: Matter can't be made or destroyed
sgthobbes must you quote venomfangx? If your gonna believe in a higher power you better accept evolution and the big bang. If there was a creator it wasnt a god, it would have been perhaps a more intelligent species which is unlikely.
You can make time, I made time this morning by brushing my teeth while having a shit. Unfortunately the time I made has now been squandered by me writing this message. Bloody christians don't know anything.
You being smart but i can use the same argument about GOD.. If all of this couldnt be created out of nothing then why should GOD just exist by itself from nothing? He must have been created by something...
She speaks of a misconception that Dawkins promoted selfishness as if selfishness was a bad thing. Selfishness is a virtue and is vital for one's happiness and successful living. Read about objectivism if you want to know more.
If you were an extremely lazy god, that is the way you would do it, because you wouldn't actually have to do anything at all. All you would have to do is start the universe going, and then sit back and watch it all happen...It is a rather strange way going about things. You might think that if God were really wanting to make it pretty convincing He exists He wouldn't choose, as a way of bringing us into existence, the one way that would make it look as though he was not there.
And you know god? How? Imaginary creations in your brain do not count!
The Bible is riddled with errors and inconsistencies, so god is error-full and inconsistent, sounds more like the bible is man's creation then man is god(s)'s creation.
Why is he so great? A being that created people and an earth for them to walk on just to have them bow down to him? Creating hurricanes and famine and plague because we pissed him off or we're not worthy? Then why did he make us just to destroy us if we didn't do what he supposedly had planned for us in the first place?
Exacly, we pissed him off. So instead of taking away his creation- he choose instead to keep them- and make them worship him whilst making them suffer. Sounds like 'perfection' alright. *rolls eyes*
I agree with 99% of what Dr. Dawkins has said here. I agree that some of the people who teach children about hell understand that it is not a real place, others who teach people about hell really think that it really exists, and they are not teaching it to harm others or make money. While I agree that the act of teaching children about the eternal tortures of hell is an evil act, I believe that calling all of these people "evil" is not accurate and does not further the atheist's cause.
This has been flagged as spam show
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical; pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible
Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation Despotism 2nd Dark Age until Bible is destroyed
SpencerBenedict2nd 3 months ago
is it legal to be married to science?
72dew 4 months ago
retinasa will help collapse wave functions as well....
quuanttum 4 months ago
maybe its a protective mechanism having back to front retinas....
quuanttum 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: DEADLY ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
etc.
TheServiceWeb 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
..it is exactly what you would expect..
hossamgebeily 8 months ago
@ 5:17 he calls it an "accident", but in his interview with Haggard he says no evolutionist calls it an "accident", I don't understand
S24995 1 year ago
@S24995 it's not an accident THAT it happened.... it's an accident HOW it happened.
rysw19 6 months ago
He says "let's differentiate the idiots on one hand from the serious christians..." I'd not call them serious but "namby pamby". Taking an non-literalistic view of the book necessitates a much more complicated and nonsensical religion. Accepting evolution leads to certain natural conclusions about humans - ie. that we're not remotely special in the grand scheme of things and that our uniqueness is a product of our own doing. We invented medicine for a reason; life wasn't ok for us.
mikeyman211 1 year ago
An example of a man who uses his brain. and not letting others to think instead of him and decide the truth.
ghazwan81 1 year ago 3
Sorry man, you should not be arrogant like that, you just have no idea, read Kant and
Newton for a starter
draquinas 1 year ago
@draquinas
They were both wrong in assuming that God existed just because the Universe was finely "tuned"!
Just because Newton was an extremely good mathematician doesn't mean that he was intelligent enough to admit the true!
luarionte 1 year ago
it always sounds like living things were made by some politions who couldn't agree on any part so they made it in a 1/2 assed way
kokofan50 1 year ago
really awesome concept at the end here!
'not one of your ancestors failed to carry on his gene' in a heaps vivid sense
HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke 1 year ago
he seems so stressed here!!
HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke 1 year ago
he said he was sick in vid 1
kokofan50 1 year ago
Theists are such great liars they even fool themselves.
Piscivorus 1 year ago 17
Indeed! Theists are even more stupid than fundamentalist religious people.
Because Theists fool themselves into believe that they can have both God and science!
luarionte 1 year ago
@luarionte
Sorry man, you should not be arrogant like that, you just have no idea, read Kant and
Newton for a starter
draquinas 1 year ago
did he say the pope is the anti christ?
mathewjohn5174 2 years ago
yes he awesomely did
hittingrabbits 1 year ago
If you still want to believe in god do it like this
Evolution is the method god used to bring us into life, to see us develop etc
Why did he chose this method? To test your faith to see if you can figure it out
BuT STOP THIS "earth is only 6000years old" CRAP -.-
RazielKain 2 years ago 11
Go get a life Naishjam, for f**** sake...
BobbyZero77 2 years ago 4
Absolute Hero!!! Dawk bless us all!!!
deanmsc2002 2 years ago
The interviewer asks lots of informed and well formed questions.
weestro7 2 years ago
I grew up Catholic and we never actually read the Bible. I think there are many Christians who have never actually read the Bible. Think about how stupid that is. You are dedicating your life to a belief and you have never even studied the foundations of that belief. Actually I don't find the questions about God that people like Dawkins or Bill Maher bring up to be all that controversial or uncommon. I had a lot of these questions in my head at age nine or less. Noahs Ark never made sense! LOL
CelestialWoodway 2 years ago
I like Richard Dawkins. He is an intelligent guy. I don't think he is evil. I believe if Dawkins discovered some new scientific evidence of a God or if he had a personal "revelation" and changed his mind he would come out and write a new book. Ironically I started off watching the DVDs Religilous, The God Who Wasn't There, then reading Dawkins book and Christopher Hitchens book and now I am reading The Bible. All of this has sparked a curiosity about The Bible for me.
CelestialWoodway 2 years ago
A day will come, one day in the unending succession of days, when beings, beings who are now latent in our thoughts and hidden in our loins, shall stand upon this earth as one stands upon a footstool, and shall laugh and reach out their hands amidst the stars."
kennegun 2 years ago
It is possible to believe that all that the human mind has ever accomplished is but the dream before the awakening... Out of our... lineage, minds will spring, that will reach back to us in our littleness to know us better than we know ourselves.
kennegun 2 years ago
kennegun: I've just one simple question: "And you would know?"
cherylwens 2 years ago
Why can't science test non-existence?
Hypothesis: There is no god.
Results: 70000 years of searching for god by billions of human beings. No God has been found yet.
cherylwens 2 years ago
Testing existing involves finding a single instance, and then identifying the conditions under which that instance is possible. Obviously, the more instances you find, the better the evidence. Testing non-existence, however, would involve demonstrating that there are absolutely under no circumstances under which the specified phenomena occurs or can occur - a much harder task.
naishjam 2 years ago
Science, therefore, can make one of three (not necessarily mutually exclusive) points: either that we have searched ridiculously hard and found no concrete evidence for phenomenon X; or that given our current theories, phenomenon X adds nothing to our understanding of the world and therefore is an unnecessary complication; or that phenomenon X is highly improbable given everything else we know.
naishjam 2 years ago
I want to meet this man and thank him, in person, for everything he has done...
AernoutMJC 2 years ago 36
@AernoutMJC It's not actually that hard if you live near a big enough city in Brittan or the United States. Definitely easy if you want to wait for his next book tour.
sulljoh1 1 year ago
@AernoutMJC Meh. he's overrated. and in fact now, atheists are leaning on this man to prove their own belief in the scientific method... sound familiar? maybe the whole Christian community relying on Jesus? Dawkin's is not the spokesman for the scientific method. Humans are. We are all responsible to make change. Don't be so lazy.
mnagmobile 9 months ago
@mnagmobile Atheists don't believe in anything. If you still cannot grasp that notion, than I pity you. Thank you for not understanding what I said either.
AernoutMJC 9 months ago
Comment removed
Leivinn20 2 years ago
Comment removed
Leivinn20 2 years ago
Please explain how atheism is a type of faith. :)
AtheistBrit 2 years ago
The Truth cannot depend on any other truth, - if the subatomic particle of your brain moves, when you think, or if you think, it moves?. The subatomic particles of your brain moves at random?. We to reason about: what is the truth?, we need respond these questions. Richard is lying. The following question is simple cause-effect.
Leivinn20 2 years ago
The correct phrase is: kind of faith. Excuse me.
Leivinn20 2 years ago
Okay, how is it a kind of faith? Just curious. :)
AtheistBrit 2 years ago
Of course, be atheist or theist depends on a personal decision. It is the truth that I try show to you, with this dilemma. Richard lies.
Leivinn20 2 years ago
Ok I'm gonna be honest here, I don't actually understand what you're getting at. You've said twice (a least) that Richard Dawkins is lying... about what? And where is your counter-evidence? I would be interested to hear it.
AtheistBrit 2 years ago
Comment removed
Leivinn20 2 years ago
Richard cannot proves HIS DECISION. If he says: my thoughts depend on the movement of subatomic particles, then the atheism is only a product from the subatomic particles; but if he says: my thoughts no depend on the movement of subatomic particles, then, the subatomic particles are capable to moves by design (spirit), and the atheism is false. It is a personal decision. The atheism is a kind of faith because is based on an assumption that cannot be verified.(put right)
Leivinn20 2 years ago
lol seriously leiv?, the people that are atheist are many times, smart people from religious backgrounds who had the brains to actually question their religion. Finding the logical holes in it, they became atheist. If you think you'll convince any of these people by saying "richard lies" your sadly mistaken. That only works on stupid people. Notice how everyone responding to you is demanding evidence? Notice how Richard provides clear cut evidence and arguments? Shh just quiet down and learn
boorens18 2 years ago
I will analyze your comment, then I will respond
Leivinn20 2 years ago
Please, do you can read my answer to AtheistBrit?. The first step of the scientific method is the observation, and this begins in our consciousness, It does not begin in subatomic particles. Richard cannot proves HIS DECISION.
Leivinn20 2 years ago
anyways no, atheism does NOT need evidence. It is the neutral decision. If you dont understand why think about it like this. Do you believe in undetectable cheese monsters? Science cant test them. Do you believe in them? Of course not, in logic NOT believing in a claim that is unsupported is the most reasonable position. Atheists dont have to PROVE no god exists, as that is the starting point. You dont believe in a miriad of things because you have no reason to. Its called occams razor.
boorens18 2 years ago 20
Comment removed
Leivinn20 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Atheism cannot deny God because cannot deny the intelligence. If the subatomic particles of your brain determines your thoughts, really can you decide?, really are you a conscious being?...I repeat: the atheism is a kind of faith because is based on an assumption that cannot be verified. Richard says: God no exists, but he is based on an idea that he cannot verified. because of this, he is lying. My evidence are the people. It`s fully verified, the persons makes science.
Leivinn20 2 years ago
I agree with boorens. Just because we can't disprove something, we should believe it? That makes no sense. I can't disprove that there's a teapot in orbit between Earth and Mars - should I believe in the teapot and be a teapotist?
AtheistBrit 2 years ago 3
If my thoughts are only product the product of random movements of subatomic particles, I should answer this issue?. If you not believe in the design, for what respond and teach about atheism?. Finish of our debate.
Leivinn20 2 years ago
Learn to speak and write the english language before starting a debate please.
CelestialWoodway 2 years ago
And you don`t send massages in English to persons who don`t understand the English language. The first American who learned to speak Spanish, he did not know Spanish(...) think about.
Leivinn20 2 years ago
and(...) I mean: If my thoughts are only product the product of random movements of subatomic particles, should answer I this issue?.
Leivinn20 2 years ago
who says the movements are random?
naishjam 2 years ago
There are only two options: unintelligent change (random) or the smart change (design), the first universal cause can not change both ways at the same time.
Leivinn20 2 years ago
I suggest you think things through more carefully. If two snooker balls are positioned at random on a table, and one ball is hit at a given angle with a given force, the final position of both balls can be accurately calculated based on the velocity of the ball after the initial impact, the friction exerted by the table and the dimension of the table, among other things.
naishjam 2 years ago
In this case, the initial position of the balls is random, and even the initial impact on the ball may be random, but the subsequent motion is not random, being a predictable function of a known set of variables. However, this is not the result of a designer, it's just the logical and predictable laws of nature at play. Try scaling that up to trillions of atoms - of course, you can never make that calculation, but it's still not random, though it may give the appearance of being so.
naishjam 2 years ago
Ok, nature is governed by laws, but they are not exacts. All level of order has its own level of statistical deviations. On the other hand, if what we can not measure two macrocopical events really identical, why you think that there may be microscopic? - We infer the atom indirectly using macrocopical measures.
Leivinn20 2 years ago
excuse me: if we can not measure two macrocopical events really identical, why you think that they may occurs microscopically?
Leivinn20 2 years ago
it's not a matter of our ability to measure them - as heisenberg tells us, such measurements are impossible in practice. the point is that movement at the atomic level is determined by the initial positions of the atoms and the velocity and nature of the initial forces that induce the motion to begin with. what follows is chaotic behaviour - it is sensitive to the initial conditions - but that does not make it any less orderly in the sense that it obeys the laws of physics.
naishjam 2 years ago
to say that something is chaotic is not to say that it is random. chaotic behaviour is predictable in principle, but it is dynamic and thus can give the illusion of randomness. there are plenty examples of chaotic behaviour in nature but these behaviours are neither random nor necessarily designed.
naishjam 2 years ago
my point here is that you are presenting a false dichotomy - there is a third option between design and randomness, chaos and determinism being two examples. of course, you will not agree with my position if you insist that the laws of nature must have been designed by god. but if that is your position, then we're into a circular argument and your comment that behaviour is either random or designed in no way advances the debate.
naishjam 2 years ago
Ok, the question is this: your *chaotic* movement * would allow the brain to be scientifically objective, to the living being recombine their DNA to adapt to the environment, and allow inexact natural laws but not absolutely chaotic. I think it's design.
Leivinn20 2 years ago
No, absolutely chaotic but only giving the appearance of randomness. Chaotic in the scientific sense of that word simply means that the behaviour is dynamic - i.e. sensitive to the initial conditions of the environment at the time the behaviour commences. But in any case, the dichotomy you present is based on the assumption that natural laws are designed, and if you dispute the assumption, then the dichotomy is no longer the case. The argument is circular and thus gets us nowhere.
naishjam 2 years ago
Ok, I think you think chaos is equal to unintelligent exchange, - I explained this: a unintelligent change cannot explain our scientific objectivity, or the recombination of DNA of organisms to adapt to the environment, or the impossibility of identical repeating of a natural event.
Leivinn20 2 years ago
Why do you pick scientific objectivity as a specific example? It seems to me that scientific objectivity is no less explicable by means of "unintelligent change" than is bias or delusion. As for the DNA of organisms, they don't recombine to adapt to the environment - that's a misinterpretation. They recombine at random. Recombinations that produce adverse effects are more likely to fail to be passed on. Thus the net result is adaptation to the environment. There is no need for intelligence.
naishjam 2 years ago
1) scientific objectivity requires independence of his own cause to study its origin, The belief that *our thoughts are products of chemical-physical reactions* is a problem, we have self-control. 2) The genes recombine "chance" if the environment is appropriate for survive a wide range of progeny. That's what Gregor Mendel did, he placed his peas in an ideal environment controlled.
Leivinn20 2 years ago
"The genes recombine "chance" if the environment is appropriate for survive a wide range of progeny" - I'm sorry, I don't think I quite understood the point of that statement. In any case, your point about Mendel is irrelevant because he knew nothing about the physical processes underpinning recombination.
naishjam 2 years ago
Scientific objectivity is not necessarily related to the ability of an organism to understand its origin at all. It simply means the ability to approach a topic with an open mind. In any case, if you talk to modern psychologists they will tell you that no being can think entirely rationally or objectively - we are all inherently bias-prone. That's why science has evolved mechanisms to overcome those limitations. When you say we have self-control, what precisely do you mean by that?
naishjam 2 years ago
As for the identical repetition of a natural event, this is not impossible, it is just highly improbable. It is improbable because of the vast complexity of most natural events. The unlikelihood of natural events being exactly replicated is exactly what we would expect, therefore - the more factors involved, the less likely they are to coincide in exactly the same way twice or more. It would be more of an argument for intelligence if natural events were frequently exactly replicated.
naishjam 2 years ago
your argument is based on a presupposition, this is not an observation. the no-replication is constant for any level of order, each level of order has its own statistical deviations. You need data to support your argument. The exact replication is impossible, two days are alike, thera is not way to prove that a series of events has really the same chance of occurring.
Leivinn20 2 years ago
If you're going to accuse me of making presuppositions, then you should identify precisely what that presupposition is. Mathematically, if you increase the number of variables that govern an event, you increase the possible outcomes of the event and therefore reduce the probability of any single outcome occurring. Natural events involve a huge number of variables. Therefore, any single outcome of a natural event is highly improbable. Thus recurrence of any given outcome is also improbable.
naishjam 2 years ago
In any case, if you claim for yourself the right to demand data from me to support my argument that natural events are complex, then I claim for myself the right to demand data and empirical evidence to support the hypothesis that there is a being, physical or metaphysical, sufficiently intelligent, large and powerful enough to either design the human brain or to control the movement of particles through the circuitry of every animal brain in the universe which seems to be your claim.
naishjam 2 years ago
I take it then that you consider yourself to be an anti-realist? That is, you consider that the truth of a statement is dependent on our ability to construct a proof for the statement? If not, then you accept the fact that we cannot prove something does not make it any less true or false and so your statement that "thera is not way to prove that a series of events has really the same chance of occurring" is irrelevant.
naishjam 2 years ago
As for the level of order argument, consider two different events - A and B. Imagine that A has just 1 possible outcome, while B has 10 possible outcomes. Self-evidently, the probability that an exact replication of event B will occur is significantly lower than the probability that an exact replication of event A will occur.
naishjam 2 years ago
In any case, do you seriously believe that no single event could EVER recur? To believe such a thing is to believe that once a particular event has occurred it is crossed off and somehow the physical world conspires to prevent its recurrence. I agree it's highly improbable, but it's not impossible. If I'm making any presupposition here it is only that truth and our ability to prove that something is true are two entirely separate concepts.
naishjam 2 years ago
If you want data, however, to test out my point about poitn about the two different events and the corresponding probability of a recurring event, try this experiment out. Get a coin and a six sided die. Flip the coin 100 times and make a note of the result of every flip. Now roll the die 100 times and make a note of every result. You are almost guaranteed to find that the chance of an event recurring for the coin flip is higher than the chance of an event recurring for the dice roll.
naishjam 2 years ago
I was referring to non-replication of a natural event, I was not referring to the concept that we have a natural event. I mean: if we analyze the die and the trajectory of every pitch, we observe that no trajectory is repeated, and that the die changes slowly and should be replaced.
Leivinn20 2 years ago
My purpose was to demonstrate my point in a manner that is amenable to observation and thus that can be decided upon. Thus I defined the outcome of a coin toss as being the value produced by the object being cast, and disregarded the position of the object when it lands. In this case we have abstracted the event somewhat, but this does not invalidate the basic point. In both cases, then, the outcome is determined by a single dependent variable.
naishjam 2 years ago
In the case of the coin, that variable has two possible values - heads and tails. In the case of the coin, the variable has six possible values. It is self evident, therefore, that the value of that particular variable being repeated is greater in the case of the coin than in the case of the die. Let us begin to scale up the complexity, and say in addition to the value produced by the cast object, we additionally observe the position in a 10 x 10 grid at which the object lands.
naishjam 2 years ago
Comment removed
naishjam 2 years ago
In that case, consider two events E1 and E2 such that Ei is either a coin toss or a roll of the die and both E1 and E2 are the same kind of event. Let Oi be the outcome for a given event, Ei, and P(Oi) be the probability of that outcome occurring for event Ei. Given the independence of the two events, the probability of O1 being followed by O2 is P(O1) * P(O2) = (10*10*N)^2. Compare that to the case in which we measure just the value of the cast item - here the probabiltiy of repetition is N^2.
naishjam 2 years ago
Already, then, we see that the improbability of an event grows significantly the more complex the event becomes. Simply by moving from a coin to a die we see that the probability of repetition dramatically decreases. Imagine, then, the complexity if we decided to measure the exact force and trajectory of the item when cast, and the exact position in every instant in time of every particle in the cast item.
naishjam 2 years ago
The complexity would be vast and the probability of a precise replication occurring would consequently be miniscule. We can say two things, however. First, despite the remoteness of the possibility of a recurrence, the event is still not impossible. To say something is impossible is to say that the probability of its occurrence is precisely 0. In our case, the probability is admittedly tiny, but it is still greater than 0, and as such the event is improbable but not impossible.
naishjam 2 years ago
The second point you've made is that the coin or die changes in some way in the process of each casting. Well, all you've done there is suggested that the behaviour of the casting process is dynamic - i.e. chaotic. The same principles regarding the probability of recurrence applies, you've simply further increased the complexity of the event. You therefore further decrease the likelihood of recurrence, but still not to actual impossibility.
naishjam 2 years ago
In any case, to say that we have not observed an event is not to say it is impossible. If you want to dispute that axiom with me, then you must say that since you have not actually observed any form of divine designer actively at work (you have, at best, inferred such an entity from what you have observed), then you must conclude that such an entity is impossible. Your argument would thereofre be self defeating.
naishjam 2 years ago
Unless you wish to argue, therefore, that there can be no designer, you are compelled to concede that we cannot conclude the impossibility of replication from the improbability of observing perfect replications of an event. To defend your insistence of the need for a designer in the kinds of changes seen in events such as a coin toss, I challenge you to point out precisely what part of the coin toss process requires the presence of a designer to explain it.
naishjam 2 years ago
I do not have time to answer a lot of comments. you tries to answer me specifically, in one or two "post", please. The experiment of the die is invalid because it was designed to appears o give the impression of random, its sides were limited to six. Nature does not repeat any day.
Leivinn20 2 years ago
This is now quite clearly reducing to an argument about definition. Empirical (as opposed to theoretical) science seeks statements of the form "under the conditions, C, one can expect a system, S, with the properties, P, to exhibit behaviours, B, and to produce results, R". When scientists talk about repeatability they mean a statement of that form, if found true in one case, will be found true in all cases. By that definition it is clear that repeatable phenomena do occur.
naishjam 2 years ago
Ok, I mean: exact repetition of a natural event, not concepts or abstractions, I mean, the no-exact repetition is constant across time, place and order level, therefore, it is a natural principle as the cause-effect principle (causal principle). I repeat: the universal change is not exact but maintains the same laws and order, is design
Leivinn20 2 years ago
You're still arguing in terms of a really vague definition of an "event". Characterise a single distinct event? In terms of time units (days, hours, seconds)? Maybe in terms of distinct phenomena (earthquake, volcanic eruption, huricane)? And then what conditions must be met for two events to be considered identical? (Identical in both time and space? Identical in space only? The position of particles within the system itself must be identical? Or must the same hold for the system environment?)
naishjam 2 years ago
I see where you're coming from, but it still seems to me that you're conflating actuality with possibility. The statements "X is not" and "X cannot be". The latter is a much stronger statement and necessarily entails the former. The former, however, does not at all entail the latter. That is, "man can never fly, therefore he is not flying" is a valid argument. "This bird I'm looking at is not flying at the moment, and therefore it cannot fly" is self-evidently an invalid argument.
naishjam 2 years ago
Similarly, to say that "we do not observe exact repetition, therefore there can never be exact repetition" is simply not a valid argument - it's precisely the same logical structure as "X is not, therefore X cannot be". Consider some more examples if you're not convinced that argument isn't logical. "My computer is not turned on now, therefore it can never be turned on". "I am not hungry right now, therefore I can never be hungry". "The sky is grey today, therefore the sky can never be blue".
naishjam 2 years ago
The fallacy is a matter of affirming the consequent, it's simply not a valid move. I am happy to admit that I've never observed an exact repetition, but the best that I can say on that basis is that I have no reason to think that I will ever experience an exact repetition. That is not at all the same thing as saying that it is physically impossible that such a thing might occur. There's really nothing more that I can say about that, if you don't accept that, then you're simply reinventing logic.
naishjam 2 years ago
You are, of course, free to dismiss logic as irrelevant, but since we're in the business of discussing science here, and science relies on logic as a means for obtaining demonstrable truth, that rather puts you at odds with the method of the discussion.
naishjam 2 years ago
There is another point here anyway. Let's start with the statement "universal change is not exact but maintains the same laws and order". Of course I accept this. But to jump from that to the conclusion "these laws are designed" seems to me a massive jump. Your thinking seems to be that there is no reason, if everything was simply random, why these laws and order would appear constant across time, even when everything else changes.
naishjam 2 years ago
It seems to me, however, that the implication of such a line of thinking is that particles have minds of their own, are concious of the laws and therefore set out to follow them at all times - or perhaps that they're being guided at every stage by the designer who ensures that the particles obey the appropriate laws. Well, if that's the interpretation you want to take, then feel free. All I can say is that there's no evidence that either is the case. We also have a simpler explanation.
naishjam 2 years ago
Science is in the business of finding patterns that describe the behaviour of the world. Patterns are postulated, then tested to see whether they hold up under a range of conditions. Patterns are then either refined accordingly, or rejected in cases where they do not hold up. The patterns that are really robust, and can be mathematically defined, we call laws. These laws, however, do not dictate what must happen in the world, but rather they are patterns that describe what does happen.
naishjam 2 years ago
It is not, therefore, that the world sets out to obey the laws. Rather, the laws describe the world precisely because if a law doesn't describe the world then we get rid of it. Doesn't particularly matter how the world works, the same would be true even if there were no gravity or relativity. We observe patterns because it's how our mind works, these patterns happen to match up to reality because we've developed a method of testing patterns and rejecting ones that don't.
naishjam 2 years ago
There is nothing to suggest that these laws are constant and will never change. In fact, some areas of theoretical physics suggest there may even be places in which normal laws of physics break down. If we found that to be the case we would have to answer two big questions - why do the normal laws not hold in those places, and what laws do hold in those places? We'd then have two sets of laws and an explanation to explain why we had two sets of laws.
naishjam 2 years ago
It'd be harder to explain, however, what would motivate a designer to create two sets of laws. Such a discovery would only add to the conclusion that the world is random rather than designed. This is true by your own admission since you seem to be implying that the designer is implied by the constancy of the laws. The corrolary to that must be that if the laws were not constant then we'd have less reason to suspect a designer.
naishjam 2 years ago
That said, however, I ask you: if we lived in such a world, would you accept the fact that the world appeared to be a little more random than it does at present?
naishjam 2 years ago
The experiment was precisely not designed to give the effect of randomness. The effect of randomness actually has no bearing on the matter, and in fact the roll of a die is precisely not random - unpredictable, not random.
naishjam 2 years ago
More simple: if not possible an exact repetition of a natural event macroscopic, nor can be the exact repetition of a microscopic natural event because the causal principle microscopic would be false. One day is not identical to another day. Nature changes but maintains the same laws and order, is design.
Leivinn20 2 years ago
I mean: *if not possible an exact repetition of a macroscopic natural event*
Leivinn20 2 years ago
I repeat: I can not understand your answers because I don`t know speak and write english(...)ja ja ja ja
Leivinn20 2 years ago
He did NOT say God doesn't exist 100%. He says that the evidence points the other way, which it does...
kusalaviro 2 years ago 2
@boorens18 occom's razor.... the easiest way to keep your chin clean.
rysw19 6 months ago
Comment removed
Leivinn20 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
the eye why couldn't that be designed?!... When it was a flat peace how would that fit in our had?
sietskebeiboer 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
the fall... wen sin came into the world there came crueltie in the world
sietskebeiboer 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Than I would be a idiot in your eayes but I believe God has made this earth.. mebey it is only 6000 or 7000 years old... God is not for nothing God.. If you believe in God you believe that he is almighty...
sietskebeiboer 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
meaby I'm a idiot in your eages.. God is not for nothing God.. so I believe He has made this earth.. I't doen't matters me how.. He is my maker:D
sietskebeiboer 2 years ago
Wow that was mind obbgling stimulative what he said about the evoloution of animals being similar to a gradual increase of arms race over millions of years....
Wonderful way to look at that, genius!
RSWumbology101 2 years ago
As good as he is at speaking, he pays almost no attention to the interviewer.
EmperorLjas 2 years ago
I'm just as much an atheist as Dawkins, but even I wouldn't presume to guess at the mindset of the assumed God.
NightmarishGuy 2 years ago
There's no need to guess! The old testament god condones genocide and numerous other atrocities - would you expect anything less brutal than natural selection from such a creator?
It doesn't seem like a huge leap to assume that if god made everything then animals have no choice other than to operate exactly according to his plan. If the natural world is violent beyond measure then that has to be a reflection of his mind. Not a god I'd worship even if I believed he existed.
tecciztucatl 2 years ago 3
wow...one of the most sensible comments, ive ever come across.....
goonerash 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I see your point and respect it, but I don't agree. I believe God made everything including us. The process he went about doing it I don't know, but I do believe that humans are so much more than just evolved animals. I think we could be evolved, but the element of hope, dreams, love, and ability to ask the question of why is what makes us so much more than just physical. I believe God gave us a choice to love him or to do our own thing, and THIS FREE WILL is why the world is full of violence.
mattvm009 2 years ago
I wasn't talking about the human world, which is certainly extremely violent by our own making as you say.
I meant nature. Animals who have no conscious mind with which to make choices. That world is ruthless and brutal, life is often short and unpleasant. Creatures eaten alive by fast and sharp toothed predators, or from within their own bodies by voracious parasites. These animals act automatically, and if all were created by god then surely they act as he intended?
tecciztucatl 2 years ago
Comment removed
mattvm009 2 years ago
The example of cruelty in nature always reminds me of the Monty Python song All Things Dull And Ugly. The wasps especially...
Anab10sis 2 years ago
Wow I never thought about it that way... not one of my millions of ancestors failed to copulate.. now I feel like my genes have been working hard and have intention, and I sholud be passing them on.. but I don't want to have babys..
alyssa0089 3 years ago
you've just made a statement "God never changes" and submitted this as evidence? no one knows anything about God, so who anointed you with this knowledge???
if something was here before the universe began, the chances of it being this personal God that is talked about in the Bible is absurd. by that reasoning it could be any of 1000s of Gods man has invented. why are people so hung up that there needs to have been some guy that made the Universe, it's silly and childish.
mcnaugam 3 years ago 8
This comment has received too many negative votes show
mr. dawkins, your chimpanzee behavior is showing again. Where did you learn that people who have a different belief than you are idiots? Haven't you learned yet that it is not polite to call people idiots? An idiot is a menthally handicapped person. How dare you call people stable, intelligent people idiots? As the old adage says, it takes one to know one. So be careful that your words do not boomerang on you. You want to appear to know more than you actually do. lesson n.1 be polite!
bohinj53 3 years ago
Where did you learn that people who have a different belief than you are idiots?
evolution isn't belief. its fact.
tiby2403 3 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
lol I thought I might find YOU here
Evolution is TOTAL belief, tiby, and quite frankly, I find it idiotic.
I do not believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old, and neither do any other Catholics (star star).
Richard Dawkins is an idiot, Albert Einstein would slap him if he could. Why don't you look up what Einstein said about God? He used his Science in accordance with God.
Richard Dawkins is just stupid, and doesn't want to accept anything further than what he can SEE.
sgthobbes2 3 years ago
no it isnt belief
and Einstein didnt believe in God.
He used the word god just to express the unexplainable.
Just because something is unexplainable, taht doesnt make it God. :)
tiby2403 3 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
It's so much belief lol... there is nothing to prove it, it is nur a Theory...
Einstein did believe in God... he was Jewish ^^
sgthobbes2 3 years ago
no proof ?
I am going to ignore that stupid reply :)
born a jewish child huh ?
you shouldn't tag people after the reliion of their parents. you were a tagged as catholic before you even saw day light.
If you were born in India you would've been a hindu
Yes. Einstein came from Jewish roots. That doesn't mean he believed in God. Show me a few records of Einstein voluntarily entering a sinagogue. Or even preaying for that matter.
He was agnostic at most.
tiby2403 3 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
He practiced his faith... he was a practicing Jew....
I still am a Catholic, though have considered converting to Islam. Either way, 'The Light' is God, tiby, and I can guarentee you, there is no harm in believing in him whether he's real or not, but if you don't- and he IS real, then there's a big suprise waiting.
As for evolution, there is no fucking proof. The "Fossil scale" or w/e shit is a guess at best.
sgthobbes2 3 years ago
:)
I guess your a Nobel prize winning biologist then
The big "IF" question ey ?
what if the Flying Spaghetti Monster is real ?
I know you've been mocking spaghetti. Don't deny it. Your going to spaghetti hell kid. Also you haven't paid tribute to Zeus lately, have you ? Ooooo.... a bad boy you've been. you'll be crossing the Styx river very soon. Also Thor would love to hammer you're head.
Why are the gods I've mentioned above any less credible than the judeo-christian god ?
tiby2403 3 years ago 9
Yes!
At Last!
The truth is REVEALED!
Our NOODLY LORD is the creator of the UNIVERSE!
Hail to you, our NOODLY MASTER!
RAmen!
SatanicCod 3 years ago 8
All hail His Noodliness. All Hail The Flying Spaghetti Monster. We love your balls!
tiby2403 3 years ago 9
rAmen!
beneaththemassacre13 3 years ago 6
Haha, technically gravity is a theory too... I don't think you understand what a theory is. You should look it up. Enlighten yourself.
malighus 2 years ago 2
why should he or anyone just accept something because he can't see it. that's just silly and opens it up to mean that you have to believe and accept everything that the human mind can imagine.
mcnaugam 3 years ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
let's change the question around, why should one not believe something because they can't see it?
I've never seen Zimbabwe, so why should I accept it exists? I've never met anyone from Zimbabwe, I've never had any direct coorolation with Zimbabwe. The only way I know about it, is that it's on my globe.
Why believe it? What makes the globe so correct? I've never actually seen it. So until I do, the globe is wrong, and Zimbabwe doesn't exist.
See how silly that sounds?
sgthobbes2 3 years ago
I've been to Zimbabwe and I can assure you it exists.
Your argument here is very flawed in my opinion. The difference is evidence. There is mountains and mountains of evidence that Zimbabwe exists. You can actually see it on the news, on the map, you can meet Zimbabwean people, you can get on a plane and go there. There is zero evidence of God, zip, none, nada, zilch.
Check out youtube vid watch?v=EbcS234hvQc for an example using Australia vs God.
mcnaugam 3 years ago 6
This has been flagged as spam show
Here's evidence of God.
If all that was created was made out of nothing, then how did it happen? Nothing can make time, but we do know time is finite. Time is changes in matter. If you were to apply properties of infinity to time, then nothing would change.
Ex: If I told you I would give you a dollar after I flipped the switch an infinite amount of times, would you get it? No, as I would never end.
God never changes, and therefore this is evidence- law: Matter can't be made or destroyed
sgthobbes2 3 years ago
sgthobbes must you quote venomfangx? If your gonna believe in a higher power you better accept evolution and the big bang. If there was a creator it wasnt a god, it would have been perhaps a more intelligent species which is unlikely.
AsG1989 3 years ago
You can make time, I made time this morning by brushing my teeth while having a shit. Unfortunately the time I made has now been squandered by me writing this message. Bloody christians don't know anything.
andywaggott 2 years ago
If there was a God he wouldnt choose you sgthobbes2 to represent him with your absurdly childish logic
BirdFantastic 2 years ago
You being smart but i can use the same argument about GOD.. If all of this couldnt be created out of nothing then why should GOD just exist by itself from nothing? He must have been created by something...
gskowal 2 years ago
what's the point of having someone who agrees with Dawkins all the time? Iwant a heated debate between him and someone who takes the opposite view
SingHouse 3 years ago
but it's not a debate. it's a conversation...
tmjewel 3 years ago 2
i thank my ancestors for having sex.
quietAtheist20 3 years ago 4
Without Condoms
cawleym1 3 years ago
and with alcohol.
therach1025 3 years ago
Nice argument.
Mephistophilus 3 years ago
They should have had water.
Mephistophilus 3 years ago
sooner.
Mephistophilus 3 years ago
dang. i never thought about that. not a single one of my ancestors failed to get it on. thats pressure.
JanuaryDiamonds 3 years ago 4
She speaks of a misconception that Dawkins promoted selfishness as if selfishness was a bad thing. Selfishness is a virtue and is vital for one's happiness and successful living. Read about objectivism if you want to know more.
leorana2 3 years ago 2
If you were an extremely lazy god, that is the way you would do it, because you wouldn't actually have to do anything at all. All you would have to do is start the universe going, and then sit back and watch it all happen...It is a rather strange way going about things. You might think that if God were really wanting to make it pretty convincing He exists He wouldn't choose, as a way of bringing us into existence, the one way that would make it look as though he was not there.
TheHallbjorn 3 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
And God is Amazing! If you knew God you would not speak for him. Except for in the Bible. True and Simple.
mqrqiq 3 years ago
And you know god? How? Imaginary creations in your brain do not count!
The Bible is riddled with errors and inconsistencies, so god is error-full and inconsistent, sounds more like the bible is man's creation then man is god(s)'s creation.
There is nothing true and simple about the bible.
s4stem 3 years ago 9
what do you mean not count? Thats what god is!
egdeltur666 3 years ago
Why is he so great? A being that created people and an earth for them to walk on just to have them bow down to him? Creating hurricanes and famine and plague because we pissed him off or we're not worthy? Then why did he make us just to destroy us if we didn't do what he supposedly had planned for us in the first place?
mrsmilo 3 years ago 5
Exacly, we pissed him off. So instead of taking away his creation- he choose instead to keep them- and make them worship him whilst making them suffer. Sounds like 'perfection' alright. *rolls eyes*
TheFemaleDurden 3 years ago 2
Sounds like a true weirdo to me.
mrsmilo 3 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
whats he on about?
the bible totally accounts for the concept of genes...im sure there are a number of references to Levis in genesis...
davesni 3 years ago
haha, nice one :D
Got any Diesels in there too?
MajonezTube 3 years ago
If DNA is a string of Genes, how do we know when a Gene starts and ends?
Are there special markers in the DNA to divide up the string into sections of Genes?
Is this what they're using pattern matching for; i.e. compare two or more DNA strings to find which parts are garbage and which parts are Genes?
niupaidanui 3 years ago
I agree with 99% of what Dr. Dawkins has said here. I agree that some of the people who teach children about hell understand that it is not a real place, others who teach people about hell really think that it really exists, and they are not teaching it to harm others or make money. While I agree that the act of teaching children about the eternal tortures of hell is an evil act, I believe that calling all of these people "evil" is not accurate and does not further the atheist's cause.
beag00 3 years ago
"The atheist's cause"
What could that be? It's not like atheism in general had some kind of unifying goal or moral code.
Hohlmackenreiter 3 years ago 2